An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 12:04 (2319 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms.

dhw: Of course I refuse to add origin of life to evolution. So did Darwin. The origin does not make the slightest difference to the theory of common descent,

DAVID: Of course the specific act of life's origin is not at issue when evolution is discussed as a process. But every evolutionary process has a beginning, and all I'm pointing out is that the origin contained/provided information which influences how evolution works.

There is no disagreement between us on this. The disagreement concerns the nature of the information. You say it comprised programmes for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. I suggested the following:
dhw: It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

DAVID: Such a mechanism would add the same 'unnecessary amount of information' you complain about.

The ability to invent seems to me to demand considerably less information than an individual programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.

dhw: So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

DAVID: No, I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.

Thank you. I do wish Tony would acknowledge your (and my) view of designed evolution as a possible alternative to random evolution, instead of insisting that anyone who believes in evolution must believe in chance.